MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7024032783

Processing of musical and vocal emotions through cochlear implants

2017· dissertation· en· W7024032783 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCentre for Research on Brain, Language and Music
KeywordsPerceptionElectroencephalographyAuditory perceptionSpeech perceptionMusic perceptionMusicalQuality (philosophy)Task (project management)Emotion perception
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cochlear implants (CI) partially restore hearing in the deaf. However, the ability to recognize emotions in speech and music is limited due to the implant's technological limitations and the impaired neural pathways that developed after sensorineural hearing loss. This leads to developmental and socioeconomic problems for CI-users and thus a decrease in quality of life. Behavioural and neural correlates of this deficit are not yet well established. This thesis aims to characterize the effect of CIs on auditory emotion perception and, for the first time, to directly compare vocal and musical emotion perception through a CI-simulator. The thesis investigated the ability of normal hearing individuals to perceive basic emotions in CI-simulated vocal and musical sounds, using a behavioural task and electroencephalography (EEG). In the behavioural study, the perception of musical and vocal emotions was impaired in the CI-simulated condition. Perception was correlated with timbral acoustic cues. In the EEG study, the averaged event-related potentials' components had reduced amplitudes and delayed latency as early as 50 milliseconds in the CI-simulated condition. Using this previously validated neuro-behavioural approach with CI-users can further enhance our knowledge and prove the importance of timbral acoustical cues for emotion recognition. It can lead to developing new processing strategies that capitalize on these cues, leading to better perception of auditory emotions and thus improving the quality of life for CI-users.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→